Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

[Ed Darrell]

It seems to me our disagreement here is on which end of the telescope to look into.  
 
As I understand your position, you argue that teaching science that tends to conflict with the religious views of students (or their parents) tends to be a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore should be stopped.  Your argument for federal power to intervene stems from the federal courts' having intervened to stop the teaching of religious views previously -- and now you're arguing that Congress and the executive may intervene to even up the sides, or to level the playing field.
 
I'm looking at it the other way (the correct way, in my view, of course).  Specifically with regard to a religious view, even one added to "balance" something else, the Constitution requires neutrality.  Moreover, neither the federal Constitution nor the state constitutions grant any branch of government any authority to act to balance out anything in this regard.  "Congress shall make no law" in this view simply means that Congress cannot get around the Constituitonal ban by inventing a new authority or a new entity and delegating the power to it.  Congress lacks the power to intervene.  Under this view, since Congress lacks the power to intervene, the executive also lacks the authority to act.  The courts have simply been ruling to stop such actions by the other two branches, or by the states.  
 
And while I think incorporation only recognizes the view that Madison had, in this case incorporation means not only that Congress can make no law requiring science be "balanced" by an insertion of religious material, but neither can any state make such a law.
 
I don't think it would be easy to argue that the teaching of science -- especially right down the middle of the road established, mainstream science like evolution -- is oppressive to any faith.  The Constitution does not require that we pretend reality is different than it is in order to avoid offending any particular sect.  Consider the Christian Scientists, for example:  Germ theory is a direct conflict with their beliefs in many cases.  In no case does the law require that we "balance" germ theory of disease with Christian Science teachings.  I think they have a better case than creationists, who often argue for creationism against the creeds or lack of creeds of their denominations.
 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 equally protects all faiths, or a lack of faith.  It enforces the citizen's right to believe as the citizen wishes.  Congress respects no establishment of religion in passing such laws, but instead honors the intent of the First Amendment more directly, by protecting the right of the citizen to believe, the right the the amendment is designed to promote.  
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas

Francis Beckwith <francis.beckwith at mac.com> wrote:
But given incorporation, it would follow that “no one shall make no law.”  In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate commerce), would be unconstitutional under your construal.

I can’t out-flag-wave you, however. :-)

Frank


On 8/2/05 12:24 PM, "Ed Darrell" <edarrell at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?"  It's not odd at all, to me.  It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirmingly comforting.
 
Ed Darrell'
Dallas

Francis Beckwith <francis.beckwith at mac.com> wrote:
Ed:

Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may “under perform.”  I’m always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case.  So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern.  It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder! al lawmakers cannot address it.  

Frank 




---------------------------------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050802/c30340a0/attachment.htm